Vincent Schisler v. Perfection Milker Company
| Decision Date | 28 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | 30,197 |
| Parties | VINCENT SCHISLER v. PERFECTION MILKER COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis, Hennepin county, to recover damages for alleged breach of a contract of employment. There were findings, Clyde R. White, Judge, in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Master and servant -- discharge of employe -- offer of reemployment -- burden of proof.
1. The burden upon an employer to show that a discharged employe could have obtained like employment with a reasonable effort is sustained if the employer shows that in good faith he offered to reinstate the employe in his former position at the same salary.
Master and servant -- discharge of employe -- offer of reemployment.
2. The record here compels a finding that the offer of reemployment was made in good faith.
Marshall S. Snyder, for appellant.
Kelly Thomas, Morck & Dillon, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis entered pursuant to findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of defendant.
July 15, 1931, plaintiff entered into a contract of employment with the defendant company whereby plaintiff, as salesman for the defendant, was to receive $300 per month from that date to January 1, 1932. December 5, 1931, defendant discharged plaintiff, paying him salary to December 15, 1931. Plaintiff asked that his salary be paid to December 31, the termination date of the contract, and under date of December 8 defendant, through its sales manager, wrote plaintiff in effect offering him reemployment to December 31 in the same capacity and at the same salary specified in the contract. Plaintiff refused to accept the reemployment and subsequently commenced this action for damages. Plaintiff would have received $150 as salary under the contract for the last half of December and asserts that he is entitled to that amount as damage because of what defendant now concedes to be a wrongful breach.
As a general rule, where, under an employment contract, the employer discharges the employe without cause, the employe is bound to accept an offer made in good faith by the employer to reemploy him in the same or a similar capacity at the same salary. Damages in consequence of the breach are mitigated by the employe's refusal to accept the offer, and the burden upon defendant to show that plaintiff could have secured like employment at the same salary is sustained by proof of such good faith offer and its refusal. Flickema v. Henry Kraker Co. 252 Mich. 406, 233 N.W. 362, 72 A.L.R. 1046; McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347 169 N.E. 605; Bigelow v. American F.P. Mfg. Co. 39 Hun, 599, and cases cited to 72 A.L.R. 1054, et seq. Anything said...
To continue reading
Request your trial